Controversial Thought...

[ROYAL BLUE]

Blue, this is the best damn post you ever had. :lol: But like someone else pointed out, how do you know they are illegal immigrants.

You aint right...:lol:

 

[ROYAL BLUE]

The Illegal Immigrants didn't cause U.S. companies to start out sourcing work and jobs to other countries.

Correct!

NAFTA/GATT

When President Bill Clinton signed off on the North American Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Trade & Tariffs in 1993, otherwise known as NAFTA/GATT, he quite literally slashed the economic throat of the United States. We've been hemorrhaging jobs to foreign nations like Communist China ever since.

Until 1993, the United States of America was the world's economic king, and our people enjoyed the highest standard of living in recorded history. But NAFTA/GATT changed all that by virtually removing all trade protections that ensured our general prosperity.

Compared to the United States, labor costs in China, Indonesia and similar nations were substantially lower than what U.S. workers earned. NAFTA/GATT allowed our corporations and U.S. entrepreneurs to move their manufacturing technology overseas and take advantage of the reduced costs of doing business, while avoiding our former trade protections that made such a move prior to NAFTA/GATT unprofitable. For those enterprises that made the move overseas right away, there was nothing but exorbitant profits to be made. http://www.rense.com/general76/cclle.htm

 

[C.O.G.]

You are correct SS. I have been doing lawn care on the side for 11 years. I know a bunch of latino's who tell me they get contracts based on a special contract clause from companies. Also these guys will take for instance a 2 acre yard that takes about 2-3 hours to do for less money than folks wioth common sense will take. They will charge $90, when in reality they should charge $160. They live two to three famlies in a 3 bed room apartment splitting it 100 bucks a piece. They can afford to do that. We on the the other hand live in one family homes paying the full cost alone. Folks need to be honest, we aren't slaves any more. Why should I take a job that cost me hours and time for 50% less and still have to pay the full cost of living, and they are splitting it 1/3 of the cost to live. It's not that we don't want those jobs, we just can't survive off of them. Let's be honest, you aren't putting 3 black families in one house like we did back in the days. It was once a time when we would have, but those days are gone. 6 grown folks and 10 kids in a 3 bed room ain't gone happen for Americans in 2009. I had sista asked me to cut her 3 acre yard for $90. I told her get a crack head or kiss my left azz cheek. The truth is that it's educated black folks who want to screw you and pay you less. White folks will pay for quality service. The best thing i ever did was get into the Asian community. Once they know you, you will have all of them. Us on the other hand wanna pay you half today, then half next week. How you gone wanna split 60 bucks in half. :shame:

I am told they get dope shipments by the tractor trailor load. Case closed.

 

[ToPdOg]

Correct!

NAFTA/GATT

When President Bill Clinton signed off on the North American Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Trade & Tariffs in 1993, otherwise known as NAFTA/GATT, he quite literally slashed the economic throat of the United States. We've been hemorrhaging jobs to foreign nations like Communist China ever since.

Until 1993, the United States of America was the world's economic king, and our people enjoyed the highest standard of living in recorded history. But NAFTA/GATT changed all that by virtually removing all trade protections that ensured our general prosperity.

Compared to the United States, labor costs in China, Indonesia and similar nations were substantially lower than what U.S. workers earned. NAFTA/GATT allowed our corporations and U.S. entrepreneurs to move their manufacturing technology overseas and take advantage of the reduced costs of doing business, while avoiding our former trade protections that made such a move prior to NAFTA/GATT unprofitable. For those enterprises that made the move overseas right away, there was nothing but exorbitant profits to be made. http://www.rense.com/general76/cclle.htm

This stuff started with "Reaganomics" back in the 1980s, and with all that deregulation Reagan was pushing through. Clinton and the Bushes didn't make it any better, but it started back with Reagan.

 

[ROYAL BLUE]

This stuff started with "Reaganomics" back in the 1980s, and with all that deregulation Reagan was pushing through. Clinton and the Bushes didn't make it any better, but it started back with Reagan.

All one would have to do is trace the crisis back to the law from which it came. I posted the laws that Clinton passed that caused America to go into a financial crisis, but I had a hard time finding laws that Reagan passed to help contribute to the crisis. Where can I find Reagan's?

 

[C.O.G.]

All one would have to do is trace the crisis back to the law from which it came. I posted the laws that Clinton passed that caused America to go into a financial crisis, but I had a hard time finding laws that Reagan passed to help contribute to the crisis. Where can I find Reagan's?

Surely you jest. Clinton inherited a republican deficiet and left a balanced budget.

 

[C.O.G.]

I believe that illegal immigrants really AREN'T taking up all the U.S. jobs. Instead, they are starting up their own companies and are thriving (for the most part).

So can we actually blame the illegal immigrants for the condition of our economy?

What's more, if they can take advantage, regardless of the economic situation, why WON'T we? :shame:

Care to discuss?

You are right.

 

[ROYAL BLUE]

Surely you jest. Clinton inherited a republican deficiet and left a balanced budget.

...........but the economy was on a decline when Clinton left office.

Also, a balanced budget doesn't equate to the national debt being full paid. I would rather the country have a balanced budget and no debt, than have a balanced budget and owe billions to foreign countries.

 

[ToPdOg]

All one would have to do is trace the crisis back to the law from which it came. I posted the laws that Clinton passed that caused America to go into a financial crisis, but I had a hard time finding laws that Reagan passed to help contribute to the crisis. Where can I find Reagan's?

Blame Ronald Reagan For Our Current Economic Crisis
By Robert Brent Toplin

Mr. Toplin, Professor of History at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington, is the author of a dozen books including Radical Conservatism: The Right’s Political Religion (2006).

Ronald Reagan rarely catches any blame these days for the present economic mess that is destabilizing markets in the United States and around the world. In fact, Americans often praise the former president for taking the country in bold new directions during his years in the White House. Politicians contribute to this love-fest by naming schools and roads after the iconic president

These admirers rarely acknowledge how central Reagan’s ideas are to the market difficulties troubling us today. As the country’s greatest modern champion of deregulation, perhaps Ronald Reagan contributed more to today’s unstable business climate than any other American. His long-standing campaign against the role of government in American life, a crusade he often stretched to extremes, produced conditions that ultimately proved bad for business.

Ronald Reagan promised to take government off the backs of enterprising Americans. He told voters that government was not the solution to the nation’s problems; it was the problem. “The nine most terrifying words in the English language,” said Reagan, are, “ ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’ ” His speeches contained numerous warnings about the chilling effects of bureaucratic regulation. Government leaders think, he said, “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

Ronald Reagan was not the only major champion of deregulation. Economist Milton Friedman served as the idea’s principal philosopher, and Newt Gingrich was a leading advocate in Congress. But Reagan was the most influential figure to make the term “government” sound like a naughty word.

The main problem with Reagan’s outlook was a failure to recognize that government regulation can serve business interests quite effectively. Many of the regulatory programs started by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s aimed to promote fairness in economic competition. That legislation required greater transparency so that investors could more intelligently judge the value of securities in the stock market. The reforms mandated a separation of commercial and investment bank activities, since speculative investments by commercial banks had been one of the principal causes of the financial crash. Roosevelt’s New Deal also created a bank insurance program, the FDIC, which brought stability to a finance industry that had been on the verge of collapse.

These and other improvements of the 1930s worked splendidly. For the next half century American markets operated with impressive stability. There were periods of boom and recession, but the country’s financial system did not suffer from the kinds of shocks that have upset the American economy in recent years.

The turn away from rules that promote fair business practices fostered dangerous risk-taking. An early sign of the troubles occurred on Reagan’s watch. When the requirements for managing savings and loan institutions became lax in the 1980s, leaders of those organizations invested money recklessly. Many institutions failed or came close to failure, and the cleanup cost more than $150 billion. Yet blame for that crisis did not stick to the Teflon President.

Recent troubles in the American economy can be attributed to a weakening of business regulation in the public interest, which is, in large part, a consequence of Reagan’s anti-government preaching. In the absence of oversight, lending became a wildcat enterprise. Mortgage brokers easily deceived home buyers by promoting sub-prime loans, and then they passed on bundled documents to unwary investors. Executives at Fannie Mae packaged both conventional and sub-prime loans, and they too, operated almost free of serious oversight. Fannie’s leaders spent lavishly to hire sixty Washington lobbyists who showered congressmen with campaign funds. Executives at Fannie were generous to the politicians because they wanted to ward off regulation.

Read the rest

 

[ROYAL BLUE]

Blame Ronald Reagan For Our Current Economic Crisis
By Robert Brent Toplin

Mr. Toplin, Professor of History at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington, is the author of a dozen books including Radical Conservatism: The Right’s Political Religion (2006).

Ronald Reagan rarely catches any blame these days for the present economic mess that is destabilizing markets in the United States and around the world. In fact, Americans often praise the former president for taking the country in bold new directions during his years in the White House. Politicians contribute to this love-fest by naming schools and roads after the iconic president

These admirers rarely acknowledge how central Reagan’s ideas are to the market difficulties troubling us today. As the country’s greatest modern champion of deregulation, perhaps Ronald Reagan contributed more to today’s unstable business climate than any other American. His long-standing campaign against the role of government in American life, a crusade he often stretched to extremes, produced conditions that ultimately proved bad for business.

Ronald Reagan promised to take government off the backs of enterprising Americans. He told voters that government was not the solution to the nation’s problems; it was the problem. “The nine most terrifying words in the English language,†said Reagan, are, “ ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’ †His speeches contained numerous warnings about the chilling effects of bureaucratic regulation. Government leaders think, he said, “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.â€

Ronald Reagan was not the only major champion of deregulation. Economist Milton Friedman served as the idea’s principal philosopher, and Newt Gingrich was a leading advocate in Congress. But Reagan was the most influential figure to make the term “government†sound like a naughty word.

The main problem with Reagan’s outlook was a failure to recognize that government regulation can serve business interests quite effectively. Many of the regulatory programs started by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s aimed to promote fairness in economic competition. That legislation required greater transparency so that investors could more intelligently judge the value of securities in the stock market. The reforms mandated a separation of commercial and investment bank activities, since speculative investments by commercial banks had been one of the principal causes of the financial crash. Roosevelt’s New Deal also created a bank insurance program, the FDIC, which brought stability to a finance industry that had been on the verge of collapse.

These and other improvements of the 1930s worked splendidly. For the next half century American markets operated with impressive stability. There were periods of boom and recession, but the country’s financial system did not suffer from the kinds of shocks that have upset the American economy in recent years.

The turn away from rules that promote fair business practices fostered dangerous risk-taking. An early sign of the troubles occurred on Reagan’s watch. When the requirements for managing savings and loan institutions became lax in the 1980s, leaders of those organizations invested money recklessly. Many institutions failed or came close to failure, and the cleanup cost more than $150 billion. Yet blame for that crisis did not stick to the Teflon President.

Recent troubles in the American economy can be attributed to a weakening of business regulation in the public interest, which is, in large part, a consequence of Reagan’s anti-government preaching. In the absence of oversight, lending became a wildcat enterprise. Mortgage brokers easily deceived home buyers by promoting sub-prime loans, and then they passed on bundled documents to unwary investors. Executives at Fannie Mae packaged both conventional and sub-prime loans, and they too, operated almost free of serious oversight. Fannie’s leaders spent lavishly to hire sixty Washington lobbyists who showered congressmen with campaign funds. Executives at Fannie were generous to the politicians because they wanted to ward off regulation.

Read the rest

Let me say this again, "I had a hard time finding laws that Reagan passed/signed to help contribute to the crisis. Where can I find Reagan's"?

Did it not occur to you that America prospered with less government instead of more government? The government is the cause of our economic crisis with their high taxation on individuials and companies, forcing banks to give out loans to folks who don't qualify, and etc. The more government we have the worse things will get.

 

[BLAQUE PRINCE]

Did it not occur to you that America prospered

Thats part of the problem. People don't want to admit that capitalism is cyclical. Business prospered...and prospered...found more ways to prosper since no one was stopping them...and finally hit the inevitable decline that will normally swing as low as the prosperity climbed high. It will always happen and not everyone can survive those dips. The answer....artificially cap the prosperity. The cap was taken off and this is what we got.

 

[ROYAL BLUE]

Thats part of the problem. People don't want to admit that capitalism is cyclical. Business prospered...and prospered...found more ways to prosper since no one was stopping them...and finally hit the inevitable decline that will normally swing as low as the prosperity climbed high. It will always happen and not everyone can survive those dips. The answer....artificially cap the prosperity. The cap was taken off and this is what we got.

No where in the constitution does it say the government has a right to cap salary in the private industry........no where. It does say that it is forbidden for America to borrow money from foreign nations. It does say "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;" These are biblical principles our founding fathers adopted to keep us on top of the world, however for some strange reason our leaders refuse to regulate themselves from borrowing money from foreign nations, allowing foreign bankers to control our monetary system,..............and putting this country in more debt by not obeying the constitution. Think about it, these clowns trying to regulate private industry when they should be regulating themselves.